UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ JAMES SARDAKOWSKI, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MIKE REMARO, Respondent - Appellee. No. 17-1443 (D.C. No. 1:17- CV-01905-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , HARTZ , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Applicant James Sardakowski was incarcera ted in a Colorado state prison when he was charged with and convicted in state court of assault on a correctional officer. He was sentenced to a term of four y ears, to be served consecutivel y to his prior sentence. He unsuccessfully appealed in st ate court his new conviction and sentence, arguing, among other things, that he was improperly denied credit toward the ne w sentence for the time he was incarcerated between the date he was charged with assault and the date of his sentencing. He then sought re lief in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. § 2 241, but the court rejected his claim. He now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) so th at he can appeal that decision. See Dulworth v.
Jones , 496 F.3d 1133, 1135 (10th Cir. 2007) (generally requiri ng COA to appeal adverse decision in § 2241 proceeding). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 7, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) . This standard requires “a demonstration that . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should ha ve been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct . 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the applicant must show that the district court’s resolution of the constitutional clai m was either “debat able or wrong.” Id. We deny a COA. It is not apparent to us what constitutional claim is being raised by Applicant. But in any event, his argumen t is so clearly lacking in merit that no reasonable jurist could debate the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of the § 2241 application. The Colorado statute governing sentence credit for presentencing incarceration is Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3- 405 (2017), which states: A person who is confined for an offe nse prior to the imposition of sentence for said offense is entitle d to credit against the term of his or her sentence for the entire period of such confinemen t. At the time of sentencing, the court shall make a finding of the am ount of presentence confinement to which the offender is entitled and sh all include such finding in the mittimus. The period of confinement shall be de ducted from the sentence by the department of corrections. A person who is confined pending a parole revocation hearing is entitled to credit for the entire period of such confinement against any period of re incarceration imposed in the parole revocation proceeding. The period of confinement shall be deducted from the period of reincarceration by the department of corrections. If a defendant is serving a sentence or is on parole for a previous offense when he or she commits a new offense and he or she continues to serve the sentence for the previous offense wh ile charges on the new offense are pending, the credit given for presente nce confinement under this section3 shall be granted against the sentence the defendant is currently serving for the previous offense and shall not be granted against the sentence for the new offense. (emphasis added). The final sentence of th e statute is unambiguous. Applicant was not entitled to any credit on his new sentence. The only credit to wh ich he was entitled for the time he was incarcerated on his prior se ntence before his sentencing on the new conviction was credit toward th e prior sentence. And he does not contend that he was denied that credit.
We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. We DENY Applicant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

. Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge